Mr. Kennedy

Um, it did help Ken Shamrock. Shamrock actually got close to winning the WWF Championship and was in the main event picture for awhile.

KOTR was not a failure, it's PPV buys were about on par with the others (a little lower, but still enough to make them profitable for WWE).

__________________
Help out a struggling college student. Visit and shop for video games at my Amazon-based store, also get Blu-ray Discs:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You can also help me out by gifting me Virtual Conole/WiiWare games or sharing PSN games with me (PM me for my info)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

horrorfan_1986

Shamrock didn't wrestle for the title on PPV after winning the KOTR, that was before. In addition to that, he left the company just over a year after winning. During his entire stint as KOTR, he was a midcarder and below what he did the year before.

__________________

RaiZ-R

No. I'm saying it was a genuine reason to create a new star... Since it was dumped WWE have created zero new stars because they haven't tried to, because they haven't had to. With King Of The Ring, the creative team had create a new star (or try, granted it didn't always work) every year. Now they don't. Even the Rumble and MITB have started concentrating of previous winners or established stars of late.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

John Cena
Batista
Randy Orton

Would all like to have a word with you.

__________________

RaiZ-R

Ok, so I exaggerated a little... But three new stars since 2002. Surely you can't think that's a good thing?

When since it became a PPV, King Of The Ring propelled Owen Hart, Steve Austin, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Edge, and Brock Lesnar into main event programmes of varying success, but all of who are at least respected by the fans, all but Owen are former World Champions, and it gave birth to Austin 3:16 thanks to an entirely off the cuff remark by Stone Cold.

How can you not see the benefits of continuing this tradition far outweigh the negatives?

__________________

horrorfan_1986

Kurt Angle was already an IC and European Champion. He was already being propelled. The KOTR didn't put Edge in any main events. It was a helpful step to get away from the tag ranks, but look at what he was doing a year later, more tag team wrestling. Triple H was already an IC champion. The KOTR didn't really help him, but rather the feud with Mankind and eventually being brought in for DX. Owen Hart already had a reason to be in the main event by pinning Bret at Wrestlemania 10. The KOTR was just a way to further the point he can be just as good or better than Bret. So out of the ones you named, I'd only say that Steve Austin and Brock Lesnar truly benefited from their KOTR wins.

Meanwhile, what about the other KOTR's? Bret Hart was already an accomplished champion in the WWE. While it was a nice way to stay in the spotlight while Hogan ruined the main event scene, he didn't need the win. Mabel was pushed to the main event...only to be released before six months came. 1998 saw Ken Shamrock come in, win the KOTR and actually saw a depush in both booking and worth. He left just over a year from being KOTR. The following year saw Billy Gunn win the KOTR. He was instantly pushed hard with The Rock. After bombing, he was thrown back into being a tag team wrestler after just a few months.

So really, out of 10 KOTR PPV's, only 2 were truly helped by it. And even then, could it have been done in other ways? With Brock, I certainly think so. With Brock continuing to plow through the competition, he would of ended up in the same spot. The KOTR only sped the process up by earning him a title shot. For Austin, I really feel as if people overrate how important the KOTR was for him. Yes, Austin 3:16 was huge. However, it was the Bret feud that made him a star, not the KOTR. However, did he need to win the KOTR in order to feud with Jake Roberts? Of course not. So the promo could have still happened without a KOTR.

While it is a fun concept, it was a failure of a PPV. There's so many different ways to push a wrestler. The one thing you're not even thinking about is that they can still have the KOTR tournament. 2006 was the perfect way to do the tournament. Have the tournament on weekly TV and have the finals on a non-KOTR PPV. That way, you can *GASP* build up to the finals, something never done before and then still have regular booking of a PPV. That would actually work.

But this whole "The KOTR made stars, so even though it was a disappointment money wise...let's keep doing the PPV's!" is crazy.

__________________

RaiZ-R

So what you're saying is that all KOTR winners need to have never held a belt before? King Of The Ring, raises awareness of a certain star and puts the spotlight on them, it does that successfully every single time. Does it always work creating a new main eventer? No, but it always works to bring the fans attention toward a star WWE wants to push harder. The point of KOTR towards the end was to give a pushed star that final jolt towards main event glory by offering a Title shot at Summerslam to the winner (like the Royal Rumble did for its winner at Wrestlemania) so the argument that people were already being pushed seems a little redundant if you ask me. You wouldn't have Jamie Noble win the King Of The Ring, same as you wouldn't have him win the Royal Rumble. That's not what it's about. My point is that King Of The Ring takes an established mid to upper mid-carder and opens up the opportunity for them to conquer the main event scene. Should they succeed, their spot is opened up for lower card talent to move up... It keeps the roster moving and motivated. Right now you have a group of headliners and main events who have been on our screens, in some cases, for over ten years, Undertaker, HBK, HHH, Edge, Cena, and Orton. Then you have the mid to upper card rife with talent like Mysterio, Punk, Morrison, Jericho, Big Show, Christian, Miz, MVP, Swagger, Bourne, Kingston, Kane and a whole host of others... Some have main evented and even held (or are holding) World Titles, but have still to become bonafide main eventers in many a fans eyes. King Of The Ring, in my opininon is a great way of doing this, because it builds those stars up to the PPV, has them look fantastic at the PPV, and then builds them continuously over the following two months to Summerslam.

I agree that the building towards the final on TV is a god way of doing things, but I see no reason to only have the final on PPV, the whole idea is that the winner beats two (or more) other stars in one night. I personally wouldn't have anymore than the semi-finals and the final, but that's personal preference I guess and not the point.

I guess my gripe is simply that since scrapping it in '02, WWE have brought it back twice and both times have done it completely wrong. In 'O6 it was exclusive to Smackdown, and meant the winner was simply King Of The Smackdown Ring, and thus was less important (plus it was a real nice time for Trips to start his King Of Kings gimmick and make everyone aware he was better than Booker no matter what, but I digress...) and '08 was won by William Regal, and was conducted (if I remember rightly) all in one night on Raw. Regal was never going to get a serious push at his age, never midn the fact he violated wellness and got booted off TV.

I have no issue with the PPV the final is at not being called King Of The Ring (even though I feel it'd be pointless not to, Royal Rumble is called Royal Rumble after all) I would just prefer that WWE kept the tournament going and used it to it's full potential, as well as using it consistently instead of when they felt like bringing it back and having another crack at it.

__________________